THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.51860/2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER REGISTERED BY THE JEEVAN BHIMANAGAR POLICE STATION, IN THAT REGARD IN CR.NO.0437/2023 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 503 AND 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in crime No.437/2023 arising out of PCR No.51860/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Varadarajan M.S., learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.2; Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Veena Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner No.1 is no more and therefore, the proceeding stands abated against him, who remains in the fray is the second petitioner. The petitioners are said to have entered into certain transactions with the complainant, which results in the complainant allegedly handing over Rs.6,00,000/- on 22.02.1994. Two decades pass by, the complainant forgets that he had lent sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioners on 22.02.1994. Wakes up from slumber and seeks to register a complaint in the month of September-2018. The police declined to register the complaint on the score that the matter was purely civil in nature. Again the petitioner goes back to sleep. After 5 years wakes up and goes back to the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation and therefore, the subject crime has sprung. The registration of the crime is what drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Sri. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.2 would submit that the first petitioner is no more and the proceedings have stood abated. The second petitioner is the wife. There is no whisper about any transaction between the wife and the complainant in the entire complaint. He would otherwise submit that an incident to the year 1994 is sought to be complained of in the year 2023. Therefore, there is gross delay and which is unexplained.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant would however seek to justify the registration of the complaint contending that in the year 2018 for the first time, 'A' complaint was sought to be registered and after 5 years again when the petitioners did not return the amount, the subject complaint comes to be filed.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are the averments in the complaint. Since the entire issue is now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint so registered before the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The complaint reads as follows:

"COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The complainant above named submits as follows;

1. The address of the complainant for the purpose of service of notice/summons from this Hon'ble court is as given in the cause title and is also care of his advocates Mohamed Shafiulla & Vinod Kumar. E, No.9, H.H.S. Complex, Cubbonpet Main Road, Bangalore-560 002.

2. The address of the accused for the purpose of service of notice/ summons from this Hon'ble court is as given above in the cause title.

3. It is submitted that complainant and 1st respondent were close friends prior to 1994, further complainant and 1st respondent were well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of each other's life very personally.

4. It is submitted that 1st respondent owned la